"You are just mad at god"--Are we actually encouraging this by mistake? - Think Atheist2016-12-09T15:44:06Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/you-are-just-mad-at-god-are-we-actually-encouraging-this-by?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A1254873&feed=yes&xn_auth=no" I DO NOT actually believe i…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-29:1982180:Comment:14292442014-01-29T04:35:48.138ZMikeLonghttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MikeLong
<p>"<span> I DO NOT actually believe in him" - HIM?</span></p>
<p><span>I avoid saying "I don't believe in God." The way this parses, there IS a God in whom I do not believe. I say, "There is no god" or words to that effect.</span></p>
<p>"<span> I DO NOT actually believe in him" - HIM?</span></p>
<p><span>I avoid saying "I don't believe in God." The way this parses, there IS a God in whom I do not believe. I say, "There is no god" or words to that effect.</span></p> Sadly the 'track' of other mi…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-28:1982180:Comment:14291482014-01-28T17:22:07.188ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>Sadly the 'track' of other minds is welded to their otherwise good intelligence. It might be more the effect of conditioning, than insight.</p>
<p>'Forgive them, they do not know what they do!'</p>
<p>Sadly the 'track' of other minds is welded to their otherwise good intelligence. It might be more the effect of conditioning, than insight.</p>
<p>'Forgive them, they do not know what they do!'</p> Yes, you are 100% correct. M…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-28:1982180:Comment:14290442014-01-28T02:57:04.408ZDustinhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DustinS
<p>Yes, you are 100% correct. My neighbor once asked me if I'm going to church and I told her I am the pianist for a church - And she then said God Bless - I then told her I was an Atheist. </p>
<p>To which she responded..."An Atheist!?" - Then she laughs. I could tell she didn't really understand what the term meant so I told her I didn't believe in God. </p>
<p>To which she responded..."How do you not believe in God!? Don't be silly, of course you do!" </p>
<p>To which I…</p>
<p>Yes, you are 100% correct. My neighbor once asked me if I'm going to church and I told her I am the pianist for a church - And she then said God Bless - I then told her I was an Atheist. </p>
<p>To which she responded..."An Atheist!?" - Then she laughs. I could tell she didn't really understand what the term meant so I told her I didn't believe in God. </p>
<p>To which she responded..."How do you not believe in God!? Don't be silly, of course you do!" </p>
<p>To which I responded..."No, actually I do not, I find there is good reason and evidence for the conclusion that God does not actually exist which is why you would say it's Faith." </p>
<p>To which she responded..."You're funny. Well I'll pray for you then."</p>
<p>So moral of the story - Some Christians just simply do not understand. So yes, I like this post and will begin using it's conversational strategy. </p> Maybe a good comeback would b…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-28:1982180:Comment:14289522014-01-28T02:49:56.889ZSheri Shttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SheriS
Maybe a good comeback would be...<br />
Yeah, they're all pretty disappointing. Santa, Ra, Zues... They all ticked me off so they had to go, too. So if the new god I invented, the all powerful Fuzzy, doesn't shape up his act soon , I'll have to go back to the drawing board. Maybe one of these times I'll invent someone who never lets me down.
Maybe a good comeback would be...<br />
Yeah, they're all pretty disappointing. Santa, Ra, Zues... They all ticked me off so they had to go, too. So if the new god I invented, the all powerful Fuzzy, doesn't shape up his act soon , I'll have to go back to the drawing board. Maybe one of these times I'll invent someone who never lets me down. Anthropology was my floodgate…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-28:1982180:Comment:14291102014-01-28T02:29:17.010ZSheri Shttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SheriS
Anthropology was my floodgate to doubt as well. How did the one true god decide who would be lucky enough to be born to parents who held the one true faith? Another key event was a statement made by my seventh grade bible teacher (I went to a church school, and ironically he was a missionary on a home tour). Anyway he was talking about some of the Old Testament laws about kosher foods. He said that god made these rules because he was protecting his chosen ones from potential harm , ie worms in…
Anthropology was my floodgate to doubt as well. How did the one true god decide who would be lucky enough to be born to parents who held the one true faith? Another key event was a statement made by my seventh grade bible teacher (I went to a church school, and ironically he was a missionary on a home tour). Anyway he was talking about some of the Old Testament laws about kosher foods. He said that god made these rules because he was protecting his chosen ones from potential harm , ie worms in pigs, etc, that we didn't even know or understand). It started the evolution of my thinking that man invented the religion to provide rules to control behavior and create taboos to protect us from environmental threats. Then, when I took anthropology in college and learned about how other religions had taboos too it just made more sense. Man creates religion for many reasons. Among them, to create societal norms and taboos. If only religions would stop there.<br />
<br />
I find some religions more disturbing than others for the intolerance and subjugation they engender. Some of the bible sounds like drunken men around the campfire made up rules that spoke to their personal preferences. Especially the rules about women's and children's roles and rights. The Annotated Skeptics Bible (one of the resources through this forum) highlights some crazy-a** sh** from the bible. And since Islam shares a common ancestry, I see where the red flags about human rights violations originate there.<br />
<br />
But truth is in perception. And for a surprisingly large percentage of humans, those religions are truth. While I do accept that most,…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-27:1982180:Comment:14290182014-01-27T20:01:05.994ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>While I do accept that most, if not all our 'humanity' in within each of us as a major part of our inheritance, it is still partly dependent on socialization. If you are raised as a brute, will you still become something more, without some modeling or other inputs? We might 'capable' of compassion, deep thought, and ethical decsision making, but can it mature/develope without a little something from outside of us? Nature VS Nuture.</p>
<p>During a last Sunday's Lutherian service, I noticed a…</p>
<p>While I do accept that most, if not all our 'humanity' in within each of us as a major part of our inheritance, it is still partly dependent on socialization. If you are raised as a brute, will you still become something more, without some modeling or other inputs? We might 'capable' of compassion, deep thought, and ethical decsision making, but can it mature/develope without a little something from outside of us? Nature VS Nuture.</p>
<p>During a last Sunday's Lutherian service, I noticed a possible problem with a previous posting that suggested my desire to self creation or origin/presence of humanity. I started to wonder if 'incompletness' issues could be present within the desire for independence, such that this idealization is foolish on the face of it.</p>
<p>While 'christ', might not deserve the deep positive press and commentary concerning 'him', his effect might have been evolutionary by a philosophical challege to Roman rule, confining theological authority, and the beginnings of multiple bifercations for different insights into the human condition. Compairing Christ with Socrates might be a fruitful exercise. The last days of Christ might be similar to the 'Apology/Crito' dialogues of Plato in thier degree of challege to state power and theological authority.</p> the underlying assertion seem…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-27:1982180:Comment:14289322014-01-27T18:50:22.742ZPope Beaniehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/PaulRyan
<blockquote><p>the underlying assertion seems to be that the needs for social-relating are not born from within the human nature/condition, but from some abstract source, and that source seems to be transendent to the human.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Oh, the irony that we conceived of God, in our image, believing the opposite! The connectedness, the awesomeness of humananity like Shakespeare is otherwise hard to explain, even when we feel part of it. (Spoiler: Science! But it's not really a spoiler,…</p>
<blockquote><p>the underlying assertion seems to be that the needs for social-relating are not born from within the human nature/condition, but from some abstract source, and that source seems to be transendent to the human.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Oh, the irony that we conceived of God, in our image, believing the opposite! The connectedness, the awesomeness of humananity like Shakespeare is otherwise hard to explain, even when we feel part of it. (Spoiler: Science! But it's not really a spoiler, because the journey's still long.)</p> For the Lutherians, I hear a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-23:1982180:Comment:14282912014-01-23T20:57:13.210ZReg The Fronkey Farmerhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RegPerry
<p><em>For the Lutherians, I hear a great deal said about acceptance, fellowship, community, love, etc. These can all be parts of any/all social-relating. For the Lutherians, they seem to link these to 'god', as if they originate with that abstraction, and 'Jesus' as a more concrete example and/or entry point.</em></p>
<p>That is a very good point James.</p>
<p><em>For the Lutherians, I hear a great deal said about acceptance, fellowship, community, love, etc. These can all be parts of any/all social-relating. For the Lutherians, they seem to link these to 'god', as if they originate with that abstraction, and 'Jesus' as a more concrete example and/or entry point.</em></p>
<p>That is a very good point James.</p> Yes. I did find a rather inte…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-23:1982180:Comment:14280842014-01-23T17:42:56.827ZJames Coxhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JamesCox
<p>Yes. I did find a rather interesting point that night concerning 'how', atleast Lutherians, might get to a belief. Luther seems to acknowledge that, left to our own devices, humans would never 'choose' to believe, that something called the 'holy spirit' must intrude. Luther seems to suggest also, that since 'spirit' translates to 'breath', 'god' needs to blow you up like a balloon(my interpretation--;p) ). In this one context, a great deal of puffery seems indicated.</p>
<p>So how does…</p>
<p>Yes. I did find a rather interesting point that night concerning 'how', atleast Lutherians, might get to a belief. Luther seems to acknowledge that, left to our own devices, humans would never 'choose' to believe, that something called the 'holy spirit' must intrude. Luther seems to suggest also, that since 'spirit' translates to 'breath', 'god' needs to blow you up like a balloon(my interpretation--;p) ). In this one context, a great deal of puffery seems indicated.</p>
<p>So how does religion/god puff us up?</p>
<p>For the Lutherians, I hear a great deal said about acceptence, fellowship, community, love, etc. These can all be parts of any/all social-relating. For the Lutherians, they seem to link these to 'god', as if they originate with that abstraction, and 'Jesus' as a more concrete example and/or entry point.</p>
<p>Again the underlying assertion seems to be that the needs for social-relating are not born from within the human nature/condition, but from some abstract source, and that source seems to be transendent to the human. This is very distasteful to me personally, and is reminiscent of a statement I have heard elsewhere, 'the god in me love you!' </p>
<p>As I have deepened into my own maturity, I have taken on the deep human need to make 'choices' about love, value, meaning, virtue, honesty, etc, and taking these into myself as things that are shared as part of our common humanity. They are not removed from our natures, or the ultimate properties of 'god'. Pretending to divorce ourselves from these, by placing them into the napsack of an abstraction, could only deepen our inhumanity to each other. When I love, 'I' am doing the loving, not 'god'! If we/I are cruel and monsterous, am I only passing off my inhumanity for judgement on the back of an abstraction, while such acts should be confronted by direct encounters with our humanity?</p>
<p>So is this then my 'reason' for bible study, to openly confront the nature of responsibility, the origins of inhumanity, and the rationalizations that can continue to our decay as a species? I expect 'religion', as a 'tool' is contained within this. </p> True enough, but their gods a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-23:1982180:Comment:14279712014-01-23T15:02:05.367ZKen Hugheshttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KenHughes
<p>True enough, but their gods are all zero dimensional as all imaginary gods most certainly are.</p>
<p>True enough, but their gods are all zero dimensional as all imaginary gods most certainly are.</p>